39 ms·

FCC rules AI-generated voices in robocalls illegal

• eitally 3y ago
  What they should have done is enforce Caller ID identification labels for robocalls. For example, "Police Officers Benevolent Association [Robocall]".
  • bongodongobob 3y ago
    Who is "they" and how do they know which calls aren't legitimate?
    • ranger_danger 3y ago
      cryptographic signatures are going to have to start becoming necessary for all kinds of things, like even your average JPG image, otherwise nobody can tell what is "fake" or not, court evidence will start to become useless.
      • bongodongobob 3y ago
        You'd have to completely redo the way telephony works. There is no way to enforce numbers or caller IDs.
        • ranger_danger 3y ago
          perhaps, but the alternative is that whatever doesn't support it, just cannot be admissable as evidence anymore.
        • luma 3y ago
          STIR/SHAKEN is already required for VOIP providers and intermediate carriers. The FCC is working it's way through the system to implement this, there is in fact a way but it takes a while.
          • larvaetron 3y ago
            > STIR/SHAKEN is already required for VOIP providers I'm not convinced that STIR/SHAKEN even works properly. Recently, I migrated a DID from one VOIP provider to another. I set the outbound caller ID on the new provider, and it was showing up Verified with a checkmark to mobile devices before I had even submitted the port request to the old provider.
            • nsporillo 3y ago
              Depending on your new provider, they might just see that they have a contract with you and sign the call on your behalf with B level attestation - indicating that they "know" the end user, but not that they have the right to use the number. As long as they managed to attach the identity header to the sip invite correctly, and are not considered to be a shady actor - downstream providers such as carriers probably have no reason to label it as spam. Spam labeling is typically done via analytics, outsourced to third parties like First Orion. Attest levels are not in themselves proper tools for spam detection. The real meat of stir shaken is the origid in the identity JWT claim which is an opaque identifier that can be traced back to a particular user/customer/network equipment. STIR/SHAKEN being sold as the one and only solution for spam calls was a mistake as it is only one iteration in the right direction. You have a handful of RFCs and ATIS specs that the FCC told operators to implement in a phased approach, and ultimately some gaps were uncovered in practice that reduced its effectiveness.
        • deleted 3y ago
          [deleted]
        • deleted 3y ago
          [deleted]
    • aw49r59aw 3y ago
      Yes. Completely redesigning how phones work is exactly what we need. This problem is only going to get worse.
      • asah 3y ago
        consumers have an easier solution: they just don't answer the phone unless it's a someone they know.
        • dymk 3y ago
          This isn't a solution. I need to accept legitimate calls from numbers who've never called me before all the time.
          • SirMaster 3y ago
            Don't accept them until they start talking. IDK, my iPhone will show me the live transcription of the callers message without me answering it. And then if I want to speak to them, I can answer the call in the middle of the message being left and talk to them. Sounds cool, but this concept isn't at all new. Anyone who used answering machines did exactly this. You would listen to the message being left in real-time and pick up if you actually wanted to talk to them. If people can't be bothered to leave a message, then that's their problem.
            • dymk 3y ago
              > Don't accept them until they start talking. Not professional, not an option for some calls. > If people can't be bothered to leave a message, then that's their problem. It's actually my problem if I miss an important call. A message is great, sure, but I still missed the call.
              • SirMaster 3y ago
                My phone shows a live transcription of the message being left. If I see that it's an important call, then I can pick up and answer right there mid-voicemail. That's what I was referring to. They start talking when they leave the voicemail. This is how we did it for a long time with home answering machines too. Except instead of reading a live transcription, you listened to their live recording, and could interrupt it and answer if you wanted to talk to them. It's not a new idea.
  • paxys 3y ago
    That would require upgrading literally 50-70 years worth of telecommunications infrastructure across the country, which isn't happening.
    • jjtheblunt 3y ago
      for landlines, do you mean?
      • bongodongobob 3y ago
        No, it's not a one or the other thing. Phone calls don't work like web apps. Hell, most land lines aren't actually copper either , they're essentially VoIP. A phone call is not just a socket connection. Look up SS7 and PSTN. It's quite literally impossible to change any of this stuff, it's far too embedded.
    • standardUser 3y ago
      Better to abandon that technology all together (for normal phone calls). It should be used exclusively for emergency calls and similarly vital functions. Let everything else operate over cell networks and require explicit opt-ins before party A can call party B. A man can dream.
    • IamLoading 3y ago
      Where is all the money going? You're saying we cant get some billions from 36 Trillion dollars? WTH
      • renegade-otter 3y ago
        That's not the priority. The priority is tax cuts for the rich. I know it sounds snarky, but I don't see how, since I've said the actual truth (TM).
      • lenerdenator 3y ago
        It's privately-owned infrastructure, for the most part. And if the companies could, they'd charge you simply for the privilege of existing in the same universe as the infrastructure even if no one ever used it, and just send that money to their shareholders.
  • NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
    What should be done is something else entirely. Apple and Google should offer, as part of their standard software, a personal "phone robot". When you get a new phone, you spend 15 minutes recording various phrases, and from that point on you just have the robot answer for you. When the robot talks to these spammers and telemarketers, it will try to keep them on the phone as long as possible. A minute would be good, 10 minutes would be better. As the spammers tried to avoid this, Apple and Google could improve the robots to counter. And, within a few months of this, at most, that industry would just be dead. It can't afford to spend a half hour on each call trying to determine if they've got a real live knucklehead who will start sending cash to Nigerian princes, or just bad software tricking operators who don't speak English as a first language. Their margins would drop, their need for more sophisticated AI to try to determine if they were talking to a real person or not would skyrocket, etc. It just wouldn't be economically viable to continue.
    • imzadi 3y ago
      Not sure why this would come from Google or Apple. You basically just described RoboKiller, which already exists.
      • NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
        So that it would be standard, and could tap into the "setting up my new phone". Just looked up Robokiller... >Robokiller is a phone app that blocks 99% of spam calls and texts with predictive analytics and audio fingerprinting. Doesn't look like what I'm talking about at all. We don't want the calls to be blocked, we want them to linger on forever. I'm not sure why that's so difficult to understand.
        • imzadi 3y ago
          RoboKiller has "answer bots" that do what you said. They just keep saying things like "hello? I'm sorry, I don't understand" etc.
          • 3y ago
• varelse 3y ago
  [dead]
• bookofjoe 3y ago
  https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/fcc-bans-ai-artificial-intelligence-voices-in-robocalls-texts-3ea20d9f?st=lsmqoy4x31idpup&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/fcc-bans-ai-artificial-intellige...
• bell-cot 3y ago
  Immediate Reaction: FBI bans robbing banks while wearing woolen socks.
• wolverine876 3y ago
  We should ban all representations of computers as human; all computer-generated (including AI-generated) communication needs to identify itself as such. One way to think of it: Why not, unless you are trying to trick someone?
  • minimaxir 3y ago
    > Why not, unless you are trying to trick someone? On social media, there's no good UI/UX for communicating something is AI-generated without it being too verbose and defeating the point. It sounds silly, but it's the truth. Meta's requirement for AI-generated media to be disclosed on FB/Insta has been the only push toward social media support.
    • wolverine876 3y ago
      > On social media, there's no good UI/UX for communicating something is AI-generated without it being too verbose and defeating the point. It sounds silly, but it's the truth. It is silly. Of all problems in the world, I bet that one could be solved.
  • init2null 3y ago
    Until we properly integrate LLM into culture, people can always test by making off-color remarks that trip up commercial LLM filters. Or by asking strangely off-topic questions. There are quirks that we can use to spot them.
• deadmutex 3y ago
  Does this also ban generated voices when they self identify as such? IMHO, if someone is not trying to deceive, it should be allowed. E.g. if the call starts out as "this is ai generated voice from xyz, ____". There are likely useful use cases for that.
  • nickthegreek 3y ago
    > There are likely useful use cases for that. A useful use case for the unsolicited caller. I don't believe there is a single useful use case for an unsolicited robocaller for the receiver to begin with, regardless of the voice being human or not.
    • deadmutex 3y ago
      > I don't believe there is a single useful use case for an unsolicited robocaller for the receiver So, if I call my vet to make an appointment, is that solicitated or unsolicited?
      • nickthegreek 3y ago
        We are discussing robocalls. I don’t know what you are trying to achieve with a comment like that. It is obviously not in good faith. A call to a business with the express purpose of working with them is exactly why they have a phone number.
  • minimaxir 3y ago
    From the ruling text (emphasis mine): https://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/fcc-ai-robocalls-ruling.pdf https://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/fcc-ai-robocall... > Consistent with our statements in the AI NOI, we confirm that the TCPA’s restrictions on the use of “artificial or prerecorded voice” encompass current AI technologies that resemble human voices and/or generate call content using a prerecorded voice. Therefore, callers must obtain prior express consent from the called party before making a call that utilizes artificial or prerecorded voice simulated or generated through AI technology. So that disclosure won't work, unless (IANAL) you have a checkbox in your signup flow that says "Yes, I consent to allowing voices generated by AI call me."
• bdamm 3y ago
  Thank goodness. AI is already allowing enough manipulation of our elections as it is.
• JohnMakin 3y ago
  How is this enforceable? Did they just outlaw all automated voice messages? How is "AI" defined here?
  • Frummy 3y ago
    Some people record their calls. Businesses often have to per compliance in most direct to consumer sales situations. From the recording, if not algorithmically, a court of law could easily determine an AI voice case by case.
    • graphe 3y ago
      So it'll just be a growing backlog that needs to have both parties present and proven without a reasonable doubt. Couldn't be a better system.
      • djur 3y ago
        This legislation is enforced through civil action, not criminal, so the burden of proof is preponderance of the evidence, not beyond reasonable doubt.
    • djur 3y ago
      A real call center would have a record of which employee made which calls when. The court subpoenas those records and the phone company's records. If they don't match, there are problems. Unless the company wants to commit perjury by inventing fake employees and call records.
  • ncallaway 3y ago
    Here is the PDF: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-24-17A1.pdf https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-24-17A1.pdf
  • toast0 3y ago
    Enforcement is difficult, but tracking complaints back to the source telecom / source customer and taking them to court, generally. Automated voice messages were already restricted, this ruling just affirms that AI generated voices fit the categorization of automated voice messages. Here's some relevant text from the ruling: > II. BACKGROUND > 3. The TCPA protects consumers from unwanted calls made using an artificial or prerecorded voice. See 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1). > In relevant part, the TCPA prohibits initiating “any telephone call to any residential telephone line using an artificial or prerecorded voice to deliver a message without the prior express consent of the called party” unless a statutory exception applies or the call is “exempted by rule or order by the Commission under [section 227(b)(2)(B)].” 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(B). The TCPA does not define the terms “artificial” or “prerecorded voice.” and later > III. DISCUSSION > 5. Consistent with our statements in the AI NOI, we confirm that the TCPA’s restrictions on the use of “artificial or prerecorded voice” encompass current AI technologies that resemble human voices and/or generate call content using a prerecorded voice.
• Fin_Code 3y ago
  How does this affect other countries dialing into the US?
  • supertrope 3y ago
    In a prior actions the FCC cracked down on "gateway" phone companies that are known to connect lots of spam from abroad.
    • jjtheblunt 3y ago
      Did the crackdown measure as having worked? I don't know where to look up those stats.
      • supertrope 3y ago
        https://transnexus.com/blog/2024/ftc-dnc-report-2023/ https://transnexus.com/blog/2024/ftc-dnc-report-2023/
        • jjtheblunt 3y ago
          thanks!
• JieJie 3y ago
  Personally, I would have preferred the FCC simply ban all unsolicited robocalls, regardless of their origin.
  • derwiki 3y ago
    This came up on a thread the other day, and I think a good counterpoint is emergency evacuation orders for the elderly. My mom doesn’t use a computer, cell phone, tablet, etc, and a robocall to her land line would be the only way to notify her.
    • JieJie 3y ago
      I would definitely opt-in to those robocalls. I guess it's the difference between opt-in and opt-out for me, not that there aren't useful cases.
    • nottorp 3y ago
      What does a (local) government alert have to do with marketing calls?
• behringer 3y ago
  This is a sad day for telephone scammer scammers.
  • Mountain_Skies 3y ago
    Most probably will shrug their shoulders and say "well, anyways" while going about their regular scam calls.
    • cmcconomy 3y ago
      you're talking about scammers not scammer scammers
  • Hnrobert42 3y ago
    Is it? I mean, the scammer scammers can still use AI to answer the phone. They just can’t initiate calls en masse using AI, which I don’t see them doing.
    • progman32 3y ago
      Some of them actively call in on known spammer numbers, like the numbers found on a fraudulent Norton invoice. Often the scammers wait for you to call.
  • notfed 3y ago
    I think they can safely assume they have a free pass here.
• pstuart 3y ago
  Robocalls themselves should be illegal.
  • teeray 3y ago
    But how would the poor political campaigns reach all those uninformed voters? /s
    • pwg 3y ago
      The "poor political campaigns" already exempted themselves from needing to adhere to the "do not call" list. So were they to make robocall's illegal, the politicians would likely again exempt themselves from the "robocalls are illegal" law. With the result that (assuming the existing robocallers all quit) the only robocalls one would get would be politician robocalls. In any case, most all of the current robocalls are already "illegal" under one or more existing laws/regulations, yet they still occur because the ones making the robocalls face few (if any) penalties for violations.
• gwbas1c 3y ago
  It seems like they're targeting the symptom instead of the problem. One of the biggest problems with robocalls is that it's really impossible to know who's calling you, and that SPAM reporting tools don't have much teeth. IE, when I have an incoming call, I should be able to see who's liable for the call. IE, "[phone number] is registered to [Person or corporation]", and that reports of spam should impede that party's ability to use the phone network.
  • jimvdv 3y ago
    I think this is antithetical to most people’s view of privacy on this platform :)
    • zeven7 3y ago
      Do most people actually care about being able to place phone calls and be anonymous in 2024? If I call someone it's either someone who has my number already or someone who is going to ask who it is (like a business) and I'm going to tell them who I am.
      • EarthAmbassador 3y ago
        There are many valid reasons for making anonymous calls in 2024, including but not limited to being able to suss out information without exposing ones on identity.
        • Analemma_ 3y ago
          Me and most people I know have stopped answering the phone completely if we don't recognize the number, because the ratio of spam to useful calls is so huge. Since this screening renders your use case for anonymous calls completely moot, the benefit of allowing them (very small, in my opinion) has to be weighed against the costs of the current system. Just to pick a random one, political polling is completely fucked at the moment, because so many people don't pick up pollster calls. Edit: actually the more I think about your comment, the less sense it makes. What information could be gained by an anonymous phone call? Please walk me through this scenario, because I don't see it at all. Who is giving away sensitive information to an anonymous caller that they wouldn't give if there was caller ID?
• karaterobot 3y ago
  > Callers who use AI technology must get prior consent from the people they are calling, the FCC said. The text of the ruling says "prior express consent" instead of unsolicited. That seems clear, but I wonder whether it is in practice. Is the one of those things where, by signing up for website A and agreeing to their terms by clicking a checkbox, I am agreeing to allow my phone number to be called by robits from companies B-Z, because of some line buried in the middle of the legal text I didn't read? I.e. "The User consents to contact for any purpose by Website A and our partners", and a partner is defined as anybody who buys their contact list from them? That is a case where the nature of T&Cs and end-user agreements makes the words "express" and "consent" more abiguous than they ought to be, since they rarely match anyone's definitions except the law's.
  • djur 3y ago
    Looks like the FCC is working on that right now too: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/06/29/2023-13821/prior-express-consent-under-the-telephone-consumer-protection-act-of-1991 https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/06/29/2023-13...
• some_random 3y ago
  I'm so glad the FCC is protecting vital spam call center jobs /s
• larrik 3y ago
  > The FCC announced the unanimous adoption of a Declaratory Ruling that recognizes calls made with AI-generated voices are "artificial" under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). So illegal in the sense that artificial robocalls are already illegal, then.
  • fngjdflmdflg 3y ago
    Yeah, I don't think they can make thing illegals. Tittles like these aren't going to help their current court case (in real court, not FCC court).
  • shrimpx 3y ago
    "FCC announces that artificial voices are indeed artificial."
  • halyconWays 3y ago
    Just like scam calls are already illegal, but nothing is done about that...
    • lenerdenator 3y ago
      You can't possibly expect Congress to give executive branch agencies enough money to do a bare-minimum job of enforcing the laws Congress passes. Especially when there are political donors making sure that we deregulate things that society wants controlled so that they can rent-collect.
      • robertlagrant 3y ago
        Bingo!
• minimaxir 3y ago
  This ruling was driven by fake Joe Biden robocalls, but there are/(were?) AI startups trying to create AI customer support bots or political reachouts with consent from the parties involved to clone those voices. From the declaratory ruling, any AI-generated voice call requires prior recipient consent: > Consistent with our statements in the AI NOI, we confirm that the TCPA’s restrictions on the use of “artificial or prerecorded voice” encompass current AI technologies that resemble human voices and/or generate call content using a prerecorded voice. Therefore, callers must obtain prior express consent from the called party before making a call that utilizes artificial or prerecorded voice simulated or generated through AI technology.
  • teaearlgraycold 3y ago
    Sounds like nothing of value is lost
  • smallerfish 3y ago
    So presumably the google assistant "feature" that can book a table at a restaurant for you is now illegal? IIRC that would place a call to the restaurant.
    • minimaxir 3y ago
      IANAL, but that would be the implication.
    • leoqa 3y ago
      This is a good outcome.
  • uticus 3y ago
    > AI startups trying to create AI customer support bots or political reachouts with consent from the parties involved to clone those voices. This is where lawyers get to have fun. What is the line between a message in the public sphere copied and multiplied via broadcast, and a message consensually altered and multiplied via AI-then-broadcast?
• ranger_danger 3y ago
  I just got an AI-generated voice call late last night about a missing elderly person in a nearby town.
• sowut 3y ago
  phone calls as we know it are going to go the way of the dinosaurs, we need trusted communication systems
  • smallerfish 3y ago
    Agreed. Once mobile data coverage is universal (via starlink et al, maybe), it's inevitable that the idea of a phone number will become antiquated. Either whatsapp (or one of its competitors) gets a sufficient monopoly and enables easily portable identities (to allow switching sims), or some other similar platform will come along. It may take a decade or two, but it will happen.
    • carstenhag 3y ago
      But it's never going to be universal. I felt very scared some weeks ago during a huge march against rightwing extremists in Munich, Germany. There were ~150k people concentrated on a few streets/km. Now, how is this relevant? Well, the entire cell network was offline, at least for some providers. At first it wasn't possible to send/receive data. Calls were connecting, but my friend sounded like an alien. Then for one hour, 0 communication was possible. So even though the most efficient (I think?) protocol was used, it came to a halt
  • uticus 3y ago
    I used to think this about email also.
• graphe 3y ago
  Oh yeah who's gonna enforce it? Hopefully they make scamming illegal too, it's utterly surprising they didn't outlaw it to prevent it from happening.
• uticus 3y ago
  > "State Attorneys General will now have new tools to crack down on these scams..." - FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel ...How? How can this be enforced? What are the new tools? Based on the news release and documentation, fiat in this case means nothing but posturing, at most being hopeful some imaginary future tool will be able to bring execution to legislation.
• Overtonwindow 3y ago
  As with everything, it’s all about enforcement.
• not2b 3y ago
  It would be more correct to say that they have officially interpreted a current law (the Telephone Consumer Protection Act) to clarify that AI-Generated voices in robocalls violate that law, which seems reasonable.
  • etskinner 3y ago
    In other words, the headline should say "FCC Rules AI-Generated Voices in Robocalls Illegal"
    • dang 3y ago
      Ok, we've made it rule above. Thanks!
  • downWidOutaFite 3y ago
    [flagged]
    • gwright 3y ago
      Activist? You clearly don't have the same definition of activist that I do. Half the problem with these sorts of conversations is there is no agreement on definitions. Please don't interpret my comment to mean that Supreme Court decisions can't be criticized, I just don't find the "activist" accusation to be particularly insightful.
      • benreesman 3y ago
        Citizen’s United was “yeah, leaning pretty hard here.” Flipping the hours d’ouvres table over on Roe v. Wade, a tense but stable compromise, that’s verging on activist. You don’t go knocking over fragile, workable standoffs that have held longer than an Ulster cease-fire if you can help it as a senior jurist. It’s a pretty neo-neocon consensus to put it charitably. It’s still the highest court in the land and it’s still binding, but I hope any thinking person is hoping for more a more“spirited but healthy” tension between major worldviews.
• ThinkBeat 3y ago
  Yeah because other activities they have deemed illegal have totally stopped. I predict a season of AI generated robocalls for the elections. From all sides. This message brought to you by .......
• thih9 3y ago
  I wonder how will this be enforced. For now this could be seen as an incentive for TTS solution providers - build a product that is hard to distinguish from an actual human calling. In many cases the results are already convincing. And what about the future. Please scan your retina to initialize the phone call? Please solve a captcha to start a phone call? Your workplace registered 12948230 calls in the last 24 hours, but employs only 3 workers registered as humans, pay fine now? Interesting times.
  • elicash 3y ago
    They describe this as giving "State Attorneys General across the country new tools to go after bad actors behind these nefarious robocalls." The way that I read that is that there are these scams out there that states are already trying to bring lawsuits against, and this simply makes their job a bit easier in some of the cases they're ALREADY bringing.
  • Geisterde 3y ago
    An antispam idea in bitcoin circles is to require payment to open an email from an unknown source. So if I want to send you an advertisement, it will only reach you if I add a payment invoice that meets your threshold. It makes spam costly and forces advertisers to focus on a narrower range of ads to people who more likely want the product.
    • thih9 3y ago
      But how does it work? Am I obliged to open an email from a person that paid? If not - why would advertisers pay for that? If yes, that feels like a job and not like my personal email account - I wouldn’t want that.
      • Geisterde 3y ago
        The trick is in how invoices can be configured in bitcoin. You would not be obliged, but you would not receive payment, and the payer would be able to reclaim those funds.
• starik36 3y ago
  That's right. I want my robocalls to be human, like my granddad preferred. /s
• jasong 3y ago
  I wonder what qualifies as a robocall. Is it just something dialed automatically? Is it still legal if a human dialed the call, but an AI-generated voice speaks?
  • zerocrates 3y ago
    The law here bans both the use of autodialers and "artificial or prerecorded voices" in calls to cell phones (along with a variety of other types of phone numbers like emergency lines, other types of lines where you might pay for the incoming call, etc.). Separately, it bans artificial/prerecorded voices in calls to residential lines. Both provisions have carveouts for emergencies or when the party being called has given their prior consent.
• djyaz1200 3y ago
  I run a company that automates B2C sales lead follow on multiple channels and we use AI to leave polite messages for folks who consent based on their inquiry. The problem we are solving is that about 1/3 of all web leads are fraudulent. Our clients are having trouble sorting through which leads are real people who want to do business and which ones are bots/BS. This ruling is disappointing. There are better ways to solve this problem, as described for many years here and elsewhere there should be "postage" for messaging and calling. Sender pays, and they get their money back in full if the recipient responds. Costs spammers millions, costs normal people nothing or very close.
  • vibeaapaaac21 3y ago
    [dead]
• lizardking 3y ago
  While not exactly the same, I once got a call from a number I didn't recognize, and when I answered the phone it was a recording of my wife saying "Hello?". I no longer answer phone calls by saying "Hello", unless I know the caller.
  • datameta 3y ago
    Precisely, I give zero information. If I do pick up once in a blue moon, I pause for 3-5 seconds to give a chance for the human to start (if it isn't a bot).
    • Buttons840 3y ago
      I have a Pixel phone and a Google bot can answer the phone for me. It transcribes the conversations on my phone in real-time, and I can push a few buttons to tell to bot what to say--things like "tell me more", or "please tell me why you're calling". If the entity calling gives an explanation I care about, then I can press a button and the bot says "thanks, connecting you now" and then I can say "hello" with my own voice and have a normal conversation. I think most people think it's just a fancy answering machine, they don't realize I'm controlling it. Voice calls are on the decline anyway, but I think it's becoming possible to have a very sophisticated AI secretary answer calls for you, even beyond what I've explained Google is doing. Imagine being able to give your LLM phone secretary a prompt and it would answer calls for you. You could tell it something like "the snowblower I listed in the classifieds is already sold" and maybe it could automatically resolve some calls or text messages for you.
      • doctorwho42 3y ago
        Ditto, it really should be the standard. Well, as well as the government actually enforcing these laws strictly. I am pretty sure they could compel companies to maintain and filter out spam/robo calls. Especially if it costs them $$$$$
      • godelski 3y ago
        I have the same phone and feature. My experience is that everyone always hangs up immediately after facing the screener. I'd love to actually use this feature, I mean hell, I can fucking text responses to them and read what they say through it! But I never can in a realistic setting because people hear robot and hang up. I've been eagerly waiting Apple's release so that the feature becomes more well known. Google really dropped the ball on advertising and honestly I think should have just pushed it to all Android phones because you need to change how people interact. I've worried it would go away because Google deems it "useless" despite its uselessness being that the feature is just not known. There's just too few Pixel phones so people aren't experiencing the screener and so act like a normal human being and go "robot? Ugh, fuck that" and associate this with calling a 1 800 number.
• TheRealPomax 3y ago
  It's puzzling why wasn't this wasn't already illegal by virtue of robocalls themselves being illegal. Why are those allowed?
  • MarioMan 3y ago
    This is exactly what the ruling is doing. It is explicit confirmation that it was already illegal under existing law.
• aw49r59aw 3y ago
  This website is reminding me more and more of libertarian facebook groups that I saw in the past. Goodbye Hacker News.
  • heififoekehdkf 3y ago
    don’t let the door hit you on the way out
  • notfed 3y ago
    Please elaborate, for someone like myself who can't keep up with the latest belief systems of political parties? Do libertarians have a strong view on this topic, and what is it? Regarding the comments, I see very few inflammatory or divisive comments. The average comment here seems to be poking fun at the fact that robocalls are already illegal, and that banning the more specific "AI robocall" seems like security theater.
• asow92 3y ago
  Would you support phones having an optional answering captcha system for untrusted numbers? Something like: "answer the following question to complete your call: if Sally has two eggs and Michael has one, how many do they both have?"
  • falcor84 3y ago
    Isn't that the sort of task that's easier for an AI than a human with other stuff on their minds?
    • asow92 3y ago
      I agree that it wouldn't catch all spam, but it might help reduce the amount of recorded robocalls waiting for someone naive enough to engage.
      • falcor84 3y ago
        I have a better suggestion - every phone call will involve a microtransaction (e.g. $0.01) from the caller to the recipient, even if not picked up. I want to see anyone make robocalls then.
        • asow92 3y ago
          I'd be open to that (hell, I'd pay even more) if it meant I received 99% less spam calls
  • zekyl314 3y ago
    My Dad's landline makes you press a digit before completing the call. So that exists already, and wish more would add this as a feature. I'm sure like anything, it could be defeated, if they had a system listening for the key to press. But it works for now.
    • asow92 3y ago
      Oh definitely, and and it will always be a game of cat and mouse. That feature on your Dad's phone sounds like a decent step in the right direction.
• happytiger 3y ago
  What kind of lack of common sense makes the use of a robotic voice illegal but allows the robotic calls to continue unabated? This is nuts.
  • vilhelm_s 3y ago
    The ruling is to treat calls with AI-generated voices the same as other robocalls, which are already illegal.
    • happytiger 3y ago
      Ok so what’s the point of another new ruling to make them especially illegal if they were already illegal? I am slow today. :)
      • vilhelm_s 3y ago
        There is a law about "artificial or prerecorded voice messages", the law was written in 1991 before modern voice generation programs so it might be unclear if it applies to them, the commission now declared that it does. This is often how it works in the U.S., congress passes a somewhat vague and general law, which authorizes an agency (in this case the FCC) to develop more detailed regulations.
        • notfed 3y ago
          Yeah, super unclear whether "Artificial" includes "Artifical Intelligence"
• jmyeet 3y ago
  I suspect this will be challenged and the Supreme Court will overturn it on First Amendment grounds. Why? Because creating hate and fear through variouis forms of media is a key part of politics. For example, local media (newspapers, radio and TV) are very big on ppushing crime hysteria narratives, despite crime being near all time lows. There's too much vested interest in unlimited robocalls to let this ruling stand. The one exception to all this is if you use an AI-generated voice to impersonate someone to say something they never said but this is already illegal on the grounds of defamation. The same applies to any deepfakes. The real problem is that the phone network as it exists now needs to die. Add to that the decades-long effort to pack the court and overturn campaign finance laws (ie Citizens United v. FEC). So I suspect this move will go nowhere. This will probably be even easier to challenge when SCOTUS overturns Chevron, as most expect them to do, essentially gutting executive agency power.
• httpz 3y ago
  I haven't answered a single phone call from a number I don't recognize for years now. As far as I know, I haven't missed anything important.
  • quatrefoil 3y ago
    But we've been trying to reach you about your car's extended warranty...
  • ct0 3y ago
    sir, ive been trying to reach you about your ...
  • mchannon 3y ago
    Being forced to interact with city government, state benefits, hospital systems, courts, police, and especially probation officers, all of whom are known to block or obfuscate their number even though missing their call could cause you no end of trouble, would help disabuse you of your smug solipsism.
    • charlieyu1 3y ago
      And most services including utilities if you want to reach a human. It fucking sucks because English is my second language, I can read and type fine but if I have to talk on the phone I’m screwed, maybe both of us could understand 70% what the other party says
    • SirMaster 3y ago
      Do they not leave a message?
      • mchannon 3y ago
        No, they don't. When the doctor's office can't get a hold of you, now you're looking at 6 months longer until you get to see the specialist you've been waiting for. When probation can't get a hold of you, now you're looking at an unannounced visit, violation, and/or arrest warrant. This happened DAILY when ankle monitors suddenly malfunctioned and communicated that they'd been cut off or that I was violating home confinement by leaving unannounced.
• heififoekehdkf 3y ago
  That will do nothing to stop the Indian scammers
• justinzollars 3y ago
  The most popular topics on HN are bureaucratic decrees. Sad.
  • notfed 3y ago
    Says the guy who submitted an HN post about an executive order, 29 days ago. (Which I see nothing wrong with, just pointing out the hypocrisy.) Anyway, is it sad, really, for folks on hacker news to discuss regulations on information technology? Especially when the regulation pivots on, of all things, "AI"?
    • deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
• slowhadoken 3y ago
  Makes sense, impersonating people for gain and/or harm is illegal.
• calamari4065 3y ago
  How exactly do they propose to enforce this that isn't the same way they "enforce" already illegal robocalls?
• charlieyu1 3y ago
  Probably not very enforceable. There is already a case in Hong Kong where an employee transferred 25m to scammers because of a deepfake video call of scammers pretending to be his colleagues.
• adolph 3y ago
  I thought robocalls were already "illegal." Does this make them double bad? Is the FCC going to do twice as much nothing about the issue?
• lamroger 3y ago
  It takes three seconds of speech to generate a synthetic version. I think of my journey job searching and how much personal information I have to trust with basically random people. Voice, likeness, sample writing, resume. Everything is out there already but makes it a lot easier
• declan_roberts 3y ago
  I’m sure this will will be about as effective as the FCC’s do not call registry!
• sonicanatidae 3y ago
  Incoming pittance fine and a handie. I'm braced..
• modeless 3y ago
  Does this outlaw the Google thing that makes restaurant reservations for you?
  • iso8859-1 3y ago
    Depends whether the restaurant asks "Which name do I put on the reservation" or "What's your name"
• lr4444lr 3y ago
  I think the FCC is splitting unimportant hairs. All non-opt-in robo calls should be considered a criminal attack on the communications infrastructure. But of course, this is considered an important part of political campaigning, and probably no one appointed to chair the agency will let it happen.
  • cush 3y ago
    Couldn’t agree more. For most people robocalls are an annoyance, but for millions of aging seniors they are a direct form of elder abuse. The amount of confusion, fear, and actual financial ruin I’ve had to deal with with family members makes me wonder how it’s had been legal for so long
• jsbg 3y ago
  I don't think that will stop scammers!
• mensetmanusman 3y ago
  Just like spam calls are illegal! Very confident people globally will follow our laws :)
• sys32768 3y ago
  If you get the persistent scammer calls, you can transfer them to https://www.reddit.com/r/itslenny/ https://www.reddit.com/r/itslenny/
• nextworddev 3y ago
  Just ban robocalls
  • euroderf 3y ago
    Then you turn plain old voice calls into an oasis for humans. Not a bad idea.
• coffeebeqn 3y ago
  Does this mean all the AI voice assistant via phone startups are screwed ? Or it’s only for outgoing calls ?
• devmor 3y ago
  I'm sure this will stop the 3-6 automated spam calls I get daily that originate outside the country.
• Obscurity4340 3y ago
  Why cant they make all robocalls illegal? Name me one good robocall
  • jimbob45 3y ago
    The pharmacy calling to tell me that my prescription is ready. Those may be AI-generated too if they add the medication name in. Not sure if that's covered by this ruling though.
  • ortusdux 3y ago
    > Why cant they make all robocalls illegal? Generally, speaking, the FCC can't pass laws, only interpret and apply them. In this instance they are not making a new law, they are declaring that the powers granted to them under the TCPA (a law passed by Congress in 1991) allows them to regulate/ban AI voiced calls. > Name me one good robocall. Government services. Voter info, school closures, water outages, etc.
• zer8k 3y ago
  Did they send a formal cease and desist to entire countries worth of scammers? Otherwise, this is yet another piece of feel-good legislation that will do nothing to stop my phone from going off. Yes, I use RoboKiller. No, it doesn't stop everything. The text spam in particular has gotten crazy and it's not even close to election day.
• jmward01 3y ago
  People use phones to 'call' each other? When did they get this feature? Is it some variation of FaceTime?
  • fragmede 3y ago
    I'm sorry, you must be trolling. It inconceivable, that in 2024, an audio to audio connection connection could be made between two "phone" users. What's next, phone numbers?
• yreg 3y ago
  Does this have any impact on Google Duplex-like services? That was the thing that enabled Pixel users to ask Google Assistant to call a restaurant and make a reservation on their behalf, etc.
  • fragmede 3y ago
    unsolicited. If the business has a contract with Google, Google can update the contact to say that they're allowed to.
    • yreg 3y ago
      That doesn't seem like a good idea. If Google/Microsoft really want to, they could get a big chunk of small businesses to allow them to do this. However there would be no way to build a competing service. I feel like robocalls made on behalf of actual consumers in relation to actual b2c transactions should be allowed.
• cyanydeez 3y ago
  just rule robo calls illegal. this is a baseless distinction. if there's not a human on the other side, it's illegal. easy to prove, record a call, ask some dumb questions and all is simple. this is a pointless line.
• ortusdux 3y ago
  I think it is important to note that the legal principle that allows the FCC to make rulings like this is called Chevron Deference, and many consider it to be under attack. https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/01/supreme-court-likely-to-discard-chevron/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/01/supreme-court-likely-to-d...
  • anonymouse008 3y ago
    Congress should have gotten off their hands and written something by now, same with Crypto legislation. “Chevron Deference” breeds tyranny through legislative apathy
    • skybrian 3y ago
      From a practical point of view, it's hard to say whether Congress would make better or worse decisions, and it's probably good that the government can make decisions about new technologies while Congress is mostly dysfunctional. Maybe the thing that guards against tyranny is that Congress can override them (by passing a law) if regulators screw up badly enough? At least, in theory. Just like, in theory, the people could elect a better Congress.
    • mullingitover 3y ago
      It's by design. Legislators aren't and can't be competent regulators, and they know this. Congress can't even handle managing fiscal policy sanely, and that's the one job they can't delegate.
      • deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      • EasyMark 3y ago
        look no further than the recent border bill that got the "no not like that, it wasn't supposed to work". Now they have to answer for it in november, a major piece of legislation in their favor and they left it on the floor because the maniac running the party has hurt feelings on not being included.
• alphazard 3y ago
  That's nice. How do they prove that the voice was AI generated, and how do they go about punishing the caller? It seems like we have been trying to legislate away spam callers for a while now, but enforcement is pretty lacking.
• donatj 3y ago
  Seems like there's a potentially silly but also valid argument here that that's a literal violation of free speech?
• Dalrymple 3y ago
  "Artificial" voices in telephone calls have existed since 1971. That is when the Votrax speech synthesis device was first developed by a company known at the time as the Federal Screw Works. The engineering was done by Richard Gagnon.
• hsbauauvhabzb 3y ago
  This seems like an odd kneejerk to a valid problem that may prevent legitimate* uses of the tech - my doctors automated ‘press 1 to speak to a doctor’ could be improved by an AI voice like siri. The problem is misuse of AI to impersonate a real person, and failing to disclose that the content you are about to see/hear/read has been autogenerated. The mechanism used might solve one issue, but has turned the entire thing into a game of whack-a-mole. *I use the term legitimate, but note I absolutely despise the use of online chatbots and imagine I’ll hate voice ones as much if not more.
  • rdgddffd 3y ago
    I think robocall means an unsolicited call someone makes to you. Answering services aren’t affected here.
    • hsbauauvhabzb 3y ago
      Either way, I could see some valid use cases, I don’t like them but I don’t see how they’re any different to a human reading a script or recorded message. Bad actors won’t be stopped by this law, so it seems like pissing in the wind.
• lettergram 3y ago
  Pretty sure they can’t “rule” anything. There’s a few cases at the Supreme Court that should issue by April(?) regarding these agencies “legislating”. I’m pretty confident this will not stand, for one, it violates the first amendment. You can’t tell anyone what messages, voices, thoughts, expressions, they cannot transmit. That’s been actually ruled in repeatedly
  • unethical_ban 3y ago
    Deceptive trade practices are indeed illegal, and this tracks as the same kind of deceptive behavior.
• neycoda 3y ago
  Wow, nice to see our government working for us and not just the corporatists.
• zan2434 3y ago
  Does this ruling make IVR systems illegal, too? I applaud the effort because this really could curb a lot of spam, but I am curious because AI generated voices in phone calls are already ubiquitous and have been for decades. Do they have a specific line they're drawing on quality of the voice?
  • anonobvious777 3y ago
    [flagged]
  • djur 3y ago
    The ruling specifically only applies to the initiator of the call. IVR is not covered. Automated calls are also permitted with consent (for instance, if you sign up for notifications for filled prescriptions or backordered library books). It has nothing to do with the quality of the voice -- prerecorded voices are banned too.
    • ksubedi 3y ago
      So is this going to be another clusterfuck like 10DLC? I am glad our company stuck with our guts and intentionally decided not to go outbound, but I almost feel bad for the startups that were banking on full outbound.
      • sirspacey 3y ago
        Which direction did you go? Were following the space closely.
      • empathy_m 3y ago
        Interesting juxtaposition in the comments of "I don't answer calls from numbers I didn't recognize because of how scam-prone modern telephony is" with "many startups have seen huge profit opportunity in making outbound phone calls automatically at scale". Reminds me of the story about overhearing Juul employees on BART talk about how hard they were working to make sure their kids never got anywhere near their product and that if other parents didn't do that, what happened next was their own fault.
• ksubedi 3y ago
  Looks like the FCC basically killed outbound AI calling companies like Air.ai, and does not seem to affect inbound companies like ours (https://echo.win https://echo.win) Interestingly they explicitly mention AI generated voices, does that mean voices generated by traditional TTS engines are fine?
  • djur 3y ago
    Those voices were already prohibited. This ruling specifically addresses agents "emulating human speech and interacting with consumers as though they were live human callers when generating voice and text messages". Based on the (alarming) demo on Air.ai's homepage, that sounds like it would be prohibited unless the user consented to be contacted in that manner when providing their phone number.
    • ksubedi 3y ago
      So looks like the only allowed use cases will be for opt-in notifications and reminders.
• elicksaur 3y ago
  The non-attention grabbing statement in the actual document: >In this Declaratory Ruling, we confirm that the TCPA’s restrictions on the use of “artificial or prerecorded voice” encompass current AI technologies that generate human voices. As a result, calls that use such technologies fall under the TCPA and the Commission’s implementing rules, and therefore require the prior express consent of the called party to initiate such calls absent an emergency purpose or exemption. This seems a) obvious and b) not really big news. But the headline sells it well I guess.
  • mcv 3y ago
    Does that mean that the same restrictions hold for prerecorded messages and AI voice calls? That makes a lot of sense.
• AustinZzx 3y ago
  I think phone calls are dying, and the future of voice interface lies within apps, web, and new products like Vision Pro. At re-tell.ai, we aim to help developers create meaningful and humanlike conversations that will solve staff shortage problem, boost productivity, and unlock new opportunities. Check out our product hunt link: https://www.producthunt.com/posts/retell-ai https://www.producthunt.com/posts/retell-ai
• AlbatrossAA 3y ago
  [dead]
• laserbeam 3y ago
  I don't see why AI voices should be completely illegal in calls. Where I live businesses are required to disclose that a call is being recorded. I see no issue if they're also required to disclose that the voice I hear is AI driven. That being said, robocalls are bs in general. What I'm saying is not an excuse for robocalls.
  • adroitboss 3y ago
    I don't know left from up in this situation, but I was under the impression outgoing calls are illegal, not inbound calls.
    • laserbeam 3y ago
      I don't see why it would matter for an end user answering or calling. I mean, the economics matter (a business can have way more AI voices than hired people to answer calls and send calls). But the experience of the human on the other end is probably ok if the human knows for sure it's an AI they are talking to. I certainly close all those calls and not bother to interact with them regardless. But in terms of legality I would probably be fine with a restriction and not with an outright ban. Unsure.
• nektro 3y ago
  yay!!
• skyde 3y ago
  why just not make all robocalls illegal instead :-) I dont care if its a AI voice or a recorded message.
• j45 3y ago
  Makes me think of the Google wavenet voices that pre-ceded much of this. In the interim, this might be an understandable safeguard before elections while a clearer path forward is discovered. I wonder if this will inspire the film industry with opposition to generative AI
• infamouscow 3y ago
  I'd much prefer they made it legal to brutally torture, rape, and murder these scumbags. I suspect these things would completely end after 10 instances of the state getting out of the way and allowing nature to handle things the way it has successfully handled things for the entire history of humanity until very recently. (Also, look at how old my account is and consider whether or not I care about your downvote. Reply with something that directly refutes the point I'm making so we can have the vibrant discussion this website used to be known for. Downvotes are simply pathetic attempts to silence correct views. Intellectuals have discussions, not censor their opponents. Only the most indefensible and mediocre positions depend on censorship and explains why the most unimpressive ideas depend on it.)
• physhster 3y ago
  That is not going to stop republicans from spewing garbage.
• lobochrome 3y ago
  Of course regular robocalls are totally yeaaahy
• eru 3y ago
  Once again, red tape and bureaucracy are holding back productivity improvements. (Only half joking here.)
• xela79 3y ago
  maybe ban robocalls?
• 5kyn3t 3y ago
  Are there some realistic Text-To-Speech voice models out there that I can use locally and for free? I know that ElevenLabs, Microsoft, of course OpenAI have some nice voices. But I would like to use them locally, or maybe in an app?
• mynameisnoone 3y ago
  Perhaps illegal activity should be illegal, and AI-generated voices for legitimate uses must be allowed, otherwise this creates a prior restraint censorship situation.
• hermannj314 3y ago
  The declaratory ruling reads such that a real-time translation service or artificial voice to accommodate a disabled live service agent would also be forbidden. In both cases an artificial voice is being generated. This ruling seems to trample on some basic human rights.
• dade_ 3y ago
  BMO uses virtual agents that impersonate humans in Canada to follow up on credit card promotions. I’ll give them credit for being realistic, I’d have fallen for it, except what I do for a living. I test them by saying: “The maze isn’t meant for you.” (Westworld) Cover is blown immediately. It awkwardly says it didn’t get that, then it agrees with me and tries to move on with prodding me to accept the credit card blathering on about the benefits. Banks doing this is an exceptionally bad idea. It’s one thing to Robo call and be clear your virtual agent (though bad - and I like the idea of it being illegal), it is extraordinarily creepy and offensive to impersonate a human.
• _heimdall 3y ago
  I hope someone is filing FOIA requests to get any communications between the White House and FCC related to this after robocalls were using Biden's voice. The timing here seems pretty dubious and as far as I'm aware the FCC is meant to be an independent body. If the White House did pressure the FCC to implement a specific rule I'm pretty sure that would be a problem. The White House can obviously set general priorities, like protecting consumers from high fees, but isn't supposed to push specific rules, like requesting a new rule to ban hidden fees. PR in this case, if the White House specifically requested a ban on ML-generated robocalls that would be a problem as far as I understand it.
• Eransbens 3y ago
  [flagged]